The question, when it comes down to it is this; If the reference photo is perfect, with no changes, for an element in your image, then is there any point in changing it?

Be careful, it's almost a trick question; the answer may be based on your own definition of "art", and as we all know, art really doesn't have any solid definition. What one person thinks is art another person will disagree with.

Danny's image in the above link sticks very closely to the reference photo, but it's important to note that it's only for one part of the image - the scene that the girl is now in has very different artistic aims than where she was referenced from.

This is not the same discussion we had a while back about Pierre's verbatim copying of photo's.

It's also worth pointing out that it's not a 1:1 copy - Danny has changed the skin tones substantially to fit into his scene, and has also changed the lighting setup and surfacing qualities. (the skin is not so shiny and the number of light sources around the body have been simplified)

These are changes just as much as anything else.

--

Personally, I'd never do it this way in one of my own images because a big part of what I like about making pictures is seeing how far I can go making stuff out of my head.

But on the other hand, I do accept Danny's view that my values aren't necessarily the "most correct". He aimed to create a scene with a very specific feel, and level of detail, and so the need to change the hair or clothing of the girl wasn't there.

The difference is this; is the end result more important or the path that got you there?

I believe this is one of those questions that has no definitive answer. Do art the way you want to do art, but always consider the other approaches.

I use photo reference -- Almost always. I find it is an integral part of my art, and my art turns out way better if I have reference (photo, or other artists) to work from. Copying; NO... Reference for lighting/subject matter, yes. Take this image for instance...Most people believe I traced it. *spits in their general direction*

Here's the reference:

I used a the "grid" technique (anyone that has done serious portraits knows what it is) -- If I had not, the image would not have come out looking how I wanted it. Any other thoughts?

I guess if it looks right it is right. Especially if you take your own reference photographs. I consider that doing research, in the same vein as making tons of sketches of hands before you paint them on the Mona Lisa.

Ugh...fuck, I don't want to cause any problems, because I really like Danny's work, and from talking with him, he's a nice guy aswell, but I'm sort of inclined to agree with what Cos said in the Summerbreeze thread.

As far as your picture goes Visigoth...well, i think its fucking great. Seriously, i really like it. Great style.

Alright, I wasn't going to reply to this debate, however certain people are just asking for it.
I am soo fed up with people jammering and whining about copying.
Cos, so I get on your tits huh? You wanna know what gets on my tits? Insinuations like yours. Quote: "it just goes deeper and deeper". end quote. What do you think this is? A conspiracy theory? Grow up will ya. Instead of suggesting things you don't know anything about, you should just try and realise that this is just a painting. No more, no less. Fact of the matter is that everything outside of the girl was done completely from the mind. No reference. I don't feel I need to mention this (nor do I like doing so), but you left me no choice as it seems to me you are for whatever reason trying to smear my name.
I went through a LOT of effort creating this image. For one thing it's over 7500 pixels wide with detail down to the pixel (I'd like to see you create a whole image with that level of detail and realism). Yet here you come along with your rediculous theories.
Yes, the girl is a close copy from the photograph. So what? I intentionaly decided to copy it so closely for the very reason that I liked it a lot. I did not see any reason to change things around. It matched the mood I was trying to convey perfectly. I've played around with certain elements but after carefull consideration decided to go with the original. Was this an error in my judgment? Should I have deviated from the feelings and intentions I had for this painting just to satisfy people like you? To prove myself to people like you that I can paint on my own without the need for reference? If that becomes a primary consideration in the creation of an image, then we're no longer dealing with trying to make art (for lack of a better word), but simply satisfying other people's expectations. Which brings me to another thing.

Cos quote: "Anyway, I think the fact that you were caught out doing this and still got away with it
because noone wants to say anything against you because of who you are, is the fact that
some people do not like that and are not respecting your picture. " end quote

What on earth do you mean by 'who you are'. Are you implying that people are somehow intimidated by my reputation and therefor just put on their friendliest smiles? If that's so, then boy are you misguided. If there's one thing I've learned over the years, then it's the fact that the better someone becomes at something, along with praise, the more critique they'll get. Some of the work I've done in the past has been nit-picked to death! I'm sure any other professional artist outthere will agree with me on this. The better you become, the harder people will look to catch you out on mistakes, and they won't hold back. No matter how insignificant it might be.
If I'm getting away with anything (whatever you meant by that) it's the fact that there are people around here that know what I'm capable of. People who look beyond the veil of prepossession and disbelief that I'm sorry to see still blinds you.

Categorically the answer is obviously yes; if a photo is perfect. But I think the issue is, also, obviously somewhere else; in the fact that photos aren't perfect and incorporating a photo into a work involves shifting the photo to the work but also can shift the work towards the photo. What that means for the process and the artist is the central debate as far as I'm concerned.
(I haven't really advanced that debate much right now though, have I. Oh well)

On another note, I do agree that folks are less inclined to debunk or accuse people who are living 'Names' in the art world (or the Sijun Forums). But I'm also of the opinion that sometimes people don't think stuff like this is an issue. For that and other reasons people just plain forget to mention it. Same thing happened to Dhabih remember, even more publicly than here.

Copying any image to that level of detail.. is profoundly amazing. Seriously.. you cant even copy the shapes and light so accurately unless you have have a high level of knowledge of what the subject is! IE, portrait artists, I would think, often have a high degree of knowledge concerning the understructure of the head, the muscles, and how everything works, and the best have a very tight understanding of the human head in 3d form. Copying shapes is one thing.. copying them to that level, I think is downright impossible, if you dont have proper understanding of WHY it's lit the way it is, and why it LOOKS the way it is.

Danny, you are an amazing artist, I think something people have a hard time accepting about your work, is that we never see anything really sketchy.. no prelminary drawings or studies.. just totally mind blowing levels of detail. It's like walking into an artists studio and not finding any spilled paint, and it appears like there's only photographs on the walls. While, I know for a fact that you have the credentials to do such detailed work (especially since you did that whole damned background without reference!!) I believe its acceptable for you to copy the image of this woman. I dont think many people on this board could do it quite so well.

geez, hehe, seems like this discussion will go forever in this forum.
Anyway, I don't really want to be a part of an argue, but I just want to write a few "personal" thoughts about the subject matter, though I'm sure noone will bother to read it ....not attacking anyone, just take it in consideration if you feel that it make sense to you (if not, feel free to say that I’m a jerk ).
Lately, at work, etc I've tried to do some illustration work from head and then take photo of the same situation and see if I can addapt the light and realism and the things that I find difficult to think of without the help of a reference (this is nothing that I've shown or posted here or anything). I think this is something of the same that f.ex: Alex Ross do and artists like Leyendecker and Rockwell did. Using photos to get the realism but still change it to something totally different.
I feel that this is something that you can learn a GREAT deal from. But, what I've also experienced when doing this is that it takes a LOT of understanding and control to be able use the photo reference to make the picture look better and believable without loosing all the charm and suppleness that was in the original sketch...and especially to keep the different parts of the picture as it was intended to, without letting everything drift towards the photo.
So, this is what I have to say (something I strongly believe in) ...
For every artists, especially those of you that uses reference and copy photos the most, you should seriously try once in a while to do some work without looking at any photo or ref. at all, to see if you've learnt anything from it. Because, even though you use help from real life to make a picture better, it's still just as important to understand and be able to make things good without some reference. And, I'm serious when I say that I don't think there's hardly any artist on this forum that has the skills and experience yet to use photos to improve your work (including myself ofc ), except spooge and fred and maybe some others (but noone that I can think of right away). Then I don't mean that it's bad to look at photos to learn, because that's were you actually can learn, but I mean blindly use it the way you see it straight into your work. You might think it looks good because you don't see the flaws or think that with photo you can achieve more, but I'm sure a really good and very experienced artist will spot the parts that have been referenced without understanding, right away. ...Now I’m talking about using photo as reference. But, copying the way people talks about here in this thread (then I mean creating a picture by looking at photos and draw straight off) has the same rules. Ofc. There’s nothing wrong with doing portraits, drawing from pic. rr whatever, but I think for those of you that do it all the time, that you should challenge yourself once in a while to sketch and paint things without any use of photo or reference at all. Because, with less good skills you will never get the freedom to paint what you have been asked or the picture you have in mind, without letting it being way too influenced by every little inch of the original photo.. and there will be flaws that the more respectable ones will notice..
Guys like Leyendecker , Rockwell, Loomis (just the first artists that pops into my name as the best examples ) had a huge understanding. And even though they used photo reference, I'm sure they often made BIG changes in light, colors, poses, faces and everything else. And, their understanding and skills gave them a chance to use reference to their own benefit without being to dependent on it. Actually, I'm sure they could have achieved the same quality and close to the same result without it, ...it would just just take more time and thinking. And, that's were the big differences are. So if you want to be a serious artist with big specter of knowledge and freedom to do what you want, I personally think that fighting to improve your skills to paint/draw straight from your mind (understanding), without the need of a photo by your side to get a satisfying result is something to strave for.

does this make sense ? Hope I didn't offended anyone and if you feel that I've said something silly or misunderstood the consept of using reference, please tell me. Personally I draw a lot of portraits and figure drawings and all kind of things, from life and photos and all that, and that's when I learn the most. But I must use it afterwards, in other situations and draw things from mind to actually carry the information and be able to use use it for something more.

Okay, I don't really have time to read all the lengthy replies, but I just want to say something about using photo reference when doing portriats.

Shouldn't using some sort of reference be NECCESSARY to do portraits?

I mean, it's not like you can memories and remember all the intricasies and unique characterstics that make a persons face their face. You're trying to recreate the likeness of someone, so people can recognise who you've drawn. Getting the likeness is very hard and I don't think portrait artists should be expected to work without reference. That's the whole point of a portrait artist.

Just hope that's all clear. Using reference when not doing a portrait is what everyone is arguing, I don't think it's valid to bring portraits and portrait artists into the debate.

I'm not sure if I came across too blunt when i put in my opinion. It was not
intended as an attack on using reference or on Danny either for that matter.
It is just how I feel about the subject. I agree with Joachim about using
reference and working from photos as a learning process alot, (as joachim
did on his prisoner pic) I wish I did that more often myself.. as long you can
implement that into creating something of your own. I don't really class someone
that can only work from photos and reference as much of an artist. Either am I
classing my own feeble attempts at art as something special either so please dont
take this the wrong way. I do see working from your imagination and working from
photos a huge difference. So if the work is from reference I think that should be
stated because that will play a big part on how it is judged and critiqued etc.

I guess when it comes to digital art and using reference and photos together,
there are so many shortcuts and easy routes to working like paint overs etc, that
it just makes the whole thing harder to appreciate as you could more instantly
with something traditional. I guess it just needs more convincing that it is
actually done by eye and not a cheat. If more evidence of that was shown then
I think I would find it much easier to accept.

...Cos, I used to think that way as well, until I discovered for myself that my art came out ten times as good if I used photo reference, OR a live model. I'm sure Vortx uses photo-reference of robots or other aircraft when he does his concept art (forgive me, Vortx if you don't want to be dragged into this, it's not my intent) -- Spooge Demon _obviously_ uses photo reference for his pieces, and other methods/"aids" as well -- And even seems to encourage it, imho...Does that make him a "cheat" as well? =P Labeling one person that uses photo reference to produce spectacular art a cheat, labels every other person that uses photo refrence a cheat as well. :P Something to consider.

Assa, what??? Heh, point is, it's not cheating.. no more so than Van Eyke (spelling?) used people in costumes to paint extremely detailed paintings. If photos were around then, believe me, he would of made use of them.. hiring someone to stand in the same costume for months at a time, isnt at all cheap! There's a local artist who uses both a photo reference and an actual physical reference for her paintings. She's a super-realist painter, and paints candy mostly. Let me tell you, you look at her paintings, and you salivate.. she uses a photo of the candy she prearranged in a dish for various lighting conditions that could only be replicated at a certain point of the day, at a certain point of the year. For everything else, she refers to the physical candy dish. Drawing purely from your brain is just plain stupid.. imagination is a powerful thing, and it takes a lot of work to get whats in our heads onto canvas. Especially when you have a deadline..

quote visigoth-
...Cos, I used to think that way as well, until I discovered for myself
that my art came out ten times as good if I used photo reference
end quote-

That is the exact reason I don't think something from reference and something
from your imagination should be judged in the same way! So if you are using
reference let us know first :P

Also I didn't say that using reference is cheating, maybe I wasn't clear
so let me clarify on that.

I mean cheating as in painting OVER photos rather than painting from using
your eye, and then telling everyone it was from eye. When it comes to digital
art, with a good technique, I'm sure it will be possible enough to do convincing
paint overs and nobody will know the difference. So that is why I think if you do
that type of digital art, you should really produce convincing back up to prove
that fact. Not just expect everybody to believe thats how it was done just on your
say so. When it comes to art from the imagination, Its easier to recognise these
things like copying from other artists etc because people tend to have styles
which makes their art recognisable. You can't really get that with photos. I'm
only classing cheating as to the person does what they say they do. If they said
'hi, this is a paint over', or 'this is a copy I did' then I wouldn't class that
as a cheat because they have let us know thats what they did and we can then judge
by that. But then I wouldn't see that as someones proper art either, more as
something they are doing to learn from.

I'm sorry things have gone this far but I say this, If someone is really so good
that they can produce such quality and photorealistic artwork just working from
eye. Then you would still see that quality (to an extent, even if it isn't there
prefered medium) in their traditional artwork. And I think they could show this
to help enforce the fact they are really working in the way they say so and not
'cheating'. By Not showing it can only concrete the suspicions and doubt even
further. and that is not going to anyone specifically, that is what I generally
feel about this type of digital artwork.

I've gotta back Danny up again here...People often accuse me of tracing or ripping off other people's work (ie; my Nagel-esque pieces *even though I hadn't heard of or seen Patrick Nagel's stuff until someone pointed it out*) and it gets quite discouraging.
I mean, come on guys; There's an obvious difference between a Threnodized pic, and Danny's pic -- You all should have recognized that by now. Grow up and can your jealousy.

Hi everyone, I started reading this thread and thought to myself.. I just read about this subject! This URL, http://www.tinmangallery.com/WWritings.html
, was posted the other day in a thread about color threoy but there are some excellent reads on many other subjects of art. Here is a quote from the "Drawing Theory" section that I think directly relates to the subject of this thread somewhat..

"Photographs for the most part destroy form because they are non interpretative. The photograph does not create a hierarchy of subordinate forms overlayed on a gestural structure. In other words artistic form is
an invented bio-morphic process; that's why no one can teach you how to draw. You must learn to translate what you see using a form language which for the most part you may construct yourself, into an image such
that you must become aware when you are drawing in the classical sense and when you are copying like a camera. A professional portrait photographer will use various levels of bounce lighting from a varity of directions in order to illuminate the form
of the sitter to prevent the natural forms from flatening out when the photograph is taken. Motion picture lighting experts use bounce lighting from various directions to illuminate form and prevent the natural forms
from flatening out when the image is captured on a flat surface..
Artists create form and shape and thus have much more controle over the lighting environment. They use light to present form and or simulate form under natural lighting conditions. This is the key element that allows you to become aware of when you are drawing in the classical sense and when you are copying in the camera sense."

Again, these essays are very good reads, albiet a little abstract at some points because they aren't quite finished.

hmm Visigoth:
I think that you mentioned spooge in this discussion was not a good example. Especially on this context.

I am not his attourney nor do I pray to him every night- but if spooge has SOMETHING then its the knowledge of how things(light/ shadow/ planes/ color/...) work.
As Joachim said already he uses REFERENCE for exactly what the word says. His works are not straight copies of a photo but they use photos. He could as well go to the actual item and look at that instead of looking at the photo.

The big difference lies there that the photo does not dictate his work.
If it happens that you have to paint the underside of a car, I guess many of us would have to use reference before they can paint it- but copying it (angles/colors/pose etc.) is a different thing- not a BAD thing, just a different approach.

So making a [skillful in danny's case] copy of a photo is something very different from what spooge does- the ammount of creativity involved is different.

That wasn't the context I meant it in; I didn't quite word it properly, but what I meant to say was;

Reference, whether it be real-life or photographed, has it's place in every piece of art; Whether it be hanging a towel up for drapery reference, having a model pose for you, or taking photos of a model and then using THOSE for reference, it's all the same. In my opinion, whether the reference is a digital photo, a traditional photo, or a live model, is irrelivant; You're using the reference for the same purpose: To add depth and realism to your image. :P It's no more cheating than using Photoshop instead of Paintbrush to complete a piece -- One is obviously better than the other.

I don't have pateience to read all that stuff up there. Cos....if you don't like what Danny has done, then keep it to yourself. You don't need to blatantly accuse him of cheating. Hell, you didn't even put it in a nice way for example "I don't think it's good practice to copy photographs... but that's my opinion" it sounds less harsh than the words you use.

Anyway, probably stated up there somwhere before. Tell me how the hell using your talent and copying a pose is cheating? For example, techniques of older artists have been adopted by many ..do you call that cheating? It's all really subjective, but the line drawn is very clear.... if the picture was just lifted from the photograph and then placed into the scene, that would be considered cheating. But, if done by looking at it and tediously replicating it, that is hard work. Do we not replicate things from everyday life? I have no idea what i just said...too late for me

First off, I agree with what Cos and Danny are saying - a bit of both worlds. Here's the deal the way I see it;

I think there is nothing wrong with copying as long as you're learning from it, and by knowing and speaking with Danny, you KNOW he knows his shit like the back of his hand - he is damn good and I respect his artwork and oppinions as a professional graphics artist. He DOES have a different method of working than my (and Cos') approach, but I don't diss him for that. I think it's quite important that people know what is copied and what comes from direct mental creation because there IS a difference. This used to happen in the demo scene a lot (and still does), where famous demo scene artists copying artwork would be in the same competition as those drawing "no copy" art. Obviously, those who drew from no reference would never (or seldomly) win, which is a sad thing because it's demoralizing to see your creative/anatomical/lighting/etc efforts being tossed down the drain by someone who repainted something. I therefore think its not fair to compare the two types of art.

I've known Danny for a while, and his artwork has always been impeccable, and even though he does redraw certain elements from reference pics, he is always after creating a new piece of art that evokes a thought and emotion, something that speaks. It should almost become secondary that certain elements may be copied, as he works on the whole picture, the idea and esthetics of it as a whole. Knowing his work and a bit where he comes from, I do not judge his work even though it's different than mine, and I expect him to respect my work as well.

I love Danny's works and efforts, and I consider him a good friend and great resource for help and commentary on my work. Another friend "Made/Bomb" (from demo scene fame) does/did this too in a different style, designing and composing images from different sources, changing around lighting, and creating a new image that yells out. I think it's great.